Atherton & District Amateur Photographic Society

I think the discussion falls into a mixture of areas. In retrospect, the Cottingley Faieies are not particularly convincing, but they were accepted as fact for many years. These days various programs can emulate easily what were high skills not so long ago.

However, the professional has nothing to fear from this because there's more to image making than manipulation. It makes life easier in that the time spent manipulating, compared to the darkroom, is much reduced. Much of the skill of the professional comes before the shutter button is even pressed. People skills, direction of the subjects, arrangement of the details.

It's an interesting debate, but it has no real answer. Ultimately, our photography is just whatever we want it to be and as long as it's fun all is well.

Looks Like I was right John I was missing the point
The camera skill first or photoshop skills more important has caused such a furore on the forum that I felt that the overiding means of how the making our pictures work was seriously overlooked.
Why do you think it would only be a professionals skill as in " Much of the skill of the professional comes before the shutter button is even presssed" and not for any one who makes any serious attempt to make an image for others to see / critique or judge.

If we are to put ourselves up for scrutiny every element in picture making should be debated and not closet driven. the camera skills first and not photshop has no definitve answer yet it is vehemently debated.
The cottngley fairies angle illustated the point that in using manipulation techiques showesd a clear thought process to create something that didnt exist and deciding how to make the image before it was made- and convincingly enough to be entrusted to become a british photographic landmark by a 16 year old 'amateur'.

If we are to enjoy our photography and make it successful and fun then I can only assume you think we cant articlate the how to, or it is only for 'professionals' to know and use. If you think we can articulate it then lets share our knowledge as we have a plethora of talent in the club don'tyou think.

Forgetting the manipulation conversation for a second. I fail to see why a B&W print from a film camera. cant win our competitons. Or am I indeed missing the point. I saw a photograher on Thursday night, (Dave Butcher ) who had several images, of a quality that would have walked off with the first prize. Had he been a member, of course..

Once again Stuj you make a fair point.
May it had something to do with the winning combination of excellent composition, honed camera skills and first class -hand- ie manipulated in the dark room processing- printing. Quality equalled in vision as well as photographic skill.

Traditional or digital it is irrelevant, professional /amateur too Elusive as it is Quality can be quantified The photographer Dave Butcher had many such examples, even tough I didn't neccessari;ly like all of his content, Keith, Gerry, Tracey, Gill, John and all of those who have done well in the club show this mix too
Mike

The image of latticed window in Lacock Abbey in 1835 by Talbot is a print from the oldest photographic negative in existence
But Louis Daguerre and he were producing ‘photographs’ some four or five years before that.
The first recorded case of photo manipulation was in the early 1860s, when a photo of Abraham Lincoln was altered using the body from a portrait of John C. Calhoun and the head of Lincoln from a famous seated portrait by Mathew Brady – the same portrait which was the basis for the original Lincoln Five-dollar bill.
It didn’t take ‘em long to realise the value of what as now became known as ‘photoshopping’
Manipulation, deception and dishonesty in the field of politics – well would you believe it?

Regards, Tom.

My feeling is that the idea comes first and then I shoot the image or images to make the idea work. This is a sure way to focus the intent of photography.

OK, often we see something, shoot it and find a use for it later, but in this instance the shot may wait a long time before the idea means we look in our archive for it. The principle might be the same.

For this reason I don't subscribe to the notion of having a "walk around lens", the impliocation of being ready for something that might happen. Sometimes that works, but it is very rare. I feel the more positive process is to seek the subject knowing what's wanted to some degree, then using the images as captures either straight or as part of something else.

I have a Chairman's Night as the opener of 2012, so I'll be exploring some of these ideas and looking at how we get inspiration and the motivation for what we shoot. It's a very big subject, but I'll be offering some simple and easily done ideas that will be quite practical.

As for film or digital, that really makes no difference as to how we approach a subject. Perhaps one is more a craft and the other is more a skill, but we end up with an image in the end.

Look forward to an intresating lively evening, in the mean time lets hope more of us can share our how to and inspirations of why we do what we do beforehand
Mike

Hello everyone
I saw my name, so here is my two penny worth. I'm not quite sure what you're all going on about. As long as you did all the work and took all the pictures, it does not matter how you did it. Photoshop is just your new dark room. Here are two pictures that have just won competitions, One is a FILM mono image, the other, 14 layers in Photoshop. One isn't better than the other, but they are all my own work. By the way Photoshop is part of a creative package for advertising, were anything goes. Have a look at Dianne Owens picture, Swept on the L&CPU website, because that won the best picture at the L&CPU competition two weeks ago.
Have fun Gerry

My only comment is that the photo of the snooker table for instance, I wouldn't have taken a photo, as there were no balls on it, I don't find any interest to press the shutter. However, as you can see from the second image, with the balls on the table, I probably would have.

I don't photograph 'partial images'. I have photographed skies and clouds before, that were interesting, but not used them to add to another photograph.

I don't get anoyed any more though, as my photography is just that, mine. I use lightroom and photoshop and do as I please to my images. I think Gerry is a good example of this with the two photos he's published. On looks alone, one took a couple of hours in a graphical manipulation program, the other looks like it had only passed through for 2 seconds.

I know which I prefer, but it is based on the result, not the method to get there.

I would have posted earlier, but I was on H&M website - errrr, trying to find a photo with a discrepency. That's my story, I'm sticking to it.

Hi Gerry,
Glad you have posted your two penny worth, For you are a gerat advocate of using camera skill with excellent post processing, the two pictures posted here show you have vision. I quoted you, and others who are reknowned in the club as people who graphically show their ideas in their pictures. Not withstanding whether camera skills come first or processing first as a debate, or super photoshopping, but HOW to 'see' a picture before it is made. I think your 14 layered picture illustrates it really well.
Guidance to others in how to see a picture is just as important skill to master as camera and processing. The harder element is imparting that knowlwdge
knowing how is part of the fun
Mike-e

mike-e wrote: Paul posted earlier that a professional photographer had said "cant polish a turd", remember professionals are meant to be proficeint photographers, and that you need to start with a "decent image"
For me the saying means that the photographer has to be able to show in his picture the message clearly so people can see it, and in doing so must use tools to do so like ;- composition,- seeing the light,- timing ,- expression,- all the elements that tell the story the picture trying to tell. without it it is useless, ie not fit for purpose.

For me, the meaning intended is simply that a bad photo is a bad photo. And no matter how much time you spend on post-processing, or however many filters and treatments you apply, it will still be a bad photo. Hence, it can't be 'polished'.

(Of course, how one defines 'bad' is subjective.)

mike-e wrote: Photgraphy is really like a tripod each leg plays an equally important,.So it is in knowing how to see an image, use of appropiate camera skills and using processing to deliver the final image.

Yes, I agree with this.

mike-e wrote: So maybe camera skills first as opposed to photoshopping more is no more important than knowing how to make a picture work. Can we have a debate on this please...

People will have their own opinions on this, obviously, depending upon their own perspective and history.

Some people would say that a decent photograph should come first. Some people would have an idea of the effect they want to create and then take it from there.

There is surely no right or wrong. And where photography is one's hobby rather than one's means of income, people have the luxury to choose and please themselves.

mike-e wrote: Guidance to others in how to see a picture is just as important skill to master as camera and processing. The harder element is imparting that knowlwdge...

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, whilst one can learn camera skills and post-processing skills, one might argue that having the ability or vision to be able to 'see' a good photograph is something that cannot be taught. One simply has it or not. Now there's a debate...



Prettige kerstdagen en een Gelukkig Nieuwjaar!

'As usual Paul is Absolutley correct"

I admire Pauls work, and his sensible replies to any thread he posts to. Very valid points to all the comment s I made

Firstly Paul, you are right that it is very subjective as to what is a 'bad' photograph, and I have seen some right rubbish being 'rescued' into something usable - I should know I have created enough rubbish myself!- My take on your point was the element of decsion making before we press the shutter, being equally as important as what we do afterwards.

Then
Glad you agree with my -inspired ?- tripod analogy

I can also appreciate the perspective of
"So maybe camera skills first as opposed to photoshopping more is no more important than knowing how to make a picture work. Can we have a debate on this please"
and no matter whether its your hobby or profession the choice will always belong to the individual, yet once it becomes serious these descions take on more importance, does that make sense ?

And Finally as for guidance in learning to see a picture Pauls devils advocate part of his post has a point, Yet there are rules in graphic design/ classical art / portraiture that can be shared, although its no guarantee they will be understood or followed.
Which brings me back to the original point
It doesn't matter which skill comes first as they are equally important.
The more serious you wish to develop your hobby/skill the more you realise that there is so much to learn. and knowing why you wish to make an image, as well as how to acheive it becomes a fantastic game/ journey
So super photoshopping or camera skills seeing the picture first before it is made all ned to be studied if we wish to better ourselves in the the science/art of photography
Paul I hope you dont mind but I would like some advice from you in the near future if I may
Mike-e

mike-e wrote: I admire Pauls work, and his sensible replies to any thread he posts to. Very valid points to all the comments I made

Thank-you Mike. That's sincerely appreciated.

mike-e wrote: no matter whether its your hobby or profession the choice will always belong to the individual, yet once it becomes serious these descions take on more importance, does that make sense ?

Perfect sense.

mike-e wrote: The more serious you wish to develop your hobby/skill the more you realise that there is so much to learn. and knowing why you wish to make an image, as well as how to acheive it becomes a fantastic game/ journey

Absolutely. And I was just thinking that it could explain why many graphic designers and 'creative' people go on to become good photographers.

mike-e wrote: Paul I hope you dont mind but I would like some advice from you in the near future if I may

Mike, I honestly don't know what I could help you with, but just let me know...
I'm always willing to help anyone in any way that I can. Feel free to contact me in person at the club or by email: paul -at- pauljones.org


PS - thanks for adding to an interesting and thought-provoking thread.


Nadolig llawen a blwyddyn newydd dda

Thanks Paul, much appreciated, it makes for an enjoyable dialogue, as well as informative way to discover what other-likeminded- people think,
I am looking to develop boudoireque portraiture into the reportoire next year and know your input will be valuable
so thank you in advance for your offer to help If you are at the club thursday will try and have a chat.
PS
I had to google you welsh phrase and
Merry Christmas and happy new year to you too

mike-e wrote: I am looking to develop boudoireque portraiture into the reportoire next year and know your input will be valuable
so thank you in advance for your offer to help If you are at the club thursday will try and have a chat.

I'm no expert on boudoir photography, Mike, but I'll help you in any way I can.

Have you seen Emma Jones' website (Miss Boudoir)? http://www.missboudoir.com/

mike-e wrote: I had to google you welsh phrase

Just my little bit of seasonal fun...


Chag Molad Sameach v'Shanah Tovah